Socially responsive technologies: toward a co-developmental path

Abstract

Robotic and artificially intelligent (AI) systems are becoming prevalent in our day-to-day lives. As human interaction is increasingly replaced by human–computer and human–robot interaction (HCI and HRI), we occasionally speak and act as though we are blaming or praising various technological devices. While such responses may arise naturally, they are still unusual. Indeed, for some authors, it is the programmers or users—and not the system itself—that we properly hold responsible in these cases. Furthermore, some argue that since directing blame or praise at technology itself is unfitting, designing systems in ways that encourage such practices can only exacerbate the problem. On the other hand, there may be good moral reasons to continue engaging in our natural practices, even in cases involving AI systems or robots. In particular, daily interactions with technology may stand to impact the development of our moral practices in human-to-human interactions. In this paper, we put forward an empirically grounded argument in favor of some technologies being designed for social responsiveness. Although our usual practices will likely undergo adjustments in response to innovative technologies, some systems which we encounter can be designed to accommodate our natural moral responses. In short, fostering HCI and HRI that sustains and promotes our natural moral practices calls for a co-developmental process with some AI and robotic technologies.

Failures in the Loop: Human Leadership in AI-Based Decision-Making

“…Tigard et al [113] broach this issue in what they refer to as "proper design" with a call to "multi-disciplinary attention". They note that "[w]e often speak and act as though we are blaming or praising our technological devices, despite these practices being unfitting toward artifacts" [113] (italics added). The researchers call for action in how we might approach the design of such systems.…”

Technological Answerability and the Severance Problem: Staying Connected by Demanding Answers

“… 22 For a related position supporting ‘socially responsive’ technology, see Tigard et al ( 2020 ). With its focus on answerability, the present account can be seen as a more specific realization of the idea of social responsiveness in technology.…”

There Is No Techno-Responsibility Gap

“…For example,Nyholm (2018Nyholm ( , 2020 accepts that robots cannot suffer and, nonetheless, argues that the collaborative agency found in human-robot partnerships can be plausible loci of responsibility.16 With the increasing prevalence of AI and robotic technologies in our day-to-day lives, and the potential effects upon our moral well-being, it seems there are reasons to support a process of co-development. SeeTigard et al (2020).There Is No Techno-Responsibility Gap…”